Craig

Hi Gengwall,
I think the sort of things you are saying @112 and @113 is why I don’t find very many evangelical Christians holding to the truly traditional “more easily deceived” position. As I understand it, the truly traditional interpretation is that women as a gender, beginning with Eve, have always been and will always be more easily deceived by Satan and false teaching than men. This doesn’t make sense biblically or experientially. Do you find many people who really believe this now?
Most comps I strike don’t believe this, and CBMW as I understand them don’t believe this. They have worked out some more palatable views of 1 Tim 2:13,14.
I am not sure that I understand your point about Webb’s view. I don’t think Webb sees Paul as refuting or promoting women’s deceptiveness. Webb sees Paul as just giving appropriate instructions for a situation that existed at the time. He believes that at that point in time in that particular place the women were more easily deceived and so shouldn’t be teaching. He is not refuting or promoting their deceptiveness, but saying they shouldn’t teach while they are in that condition. This view certainly has its problems, but I am not sure that I understand the problem you are seeing.
I think you would agree that Eve was “more easily deceived” than Adam in the Garden. She did not have the same knowledge and experience at that point in time as what Adam had. Webb is just saying the same sort of thing about women in Ephesus at that time. Cheryl is saying the same sort of thing about a particular Ephesian woman. I think Cheryl’s view makes the most sense, and will be widely accepted if it can be positively demonstrated and accepted that Paul could have and would have used these Greek words to discuss the problems concerning a particular woman.
I certainly didn’t raise the subject of Webb’s book to promote his understanding of 1 Tim 2. I raised it to discuss the method of using hermeneutics to show the deficiencies in the comp view of not just 1 Tim 2, but patriarchy in general.